<script src="https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/3.1.0/jquery.min.js"></script>
<div id="#test-root"><div class="test-child"></div></div>
jQuery('#test-root .test-child').css('border', '1px solid red');
jQuery('#test-root').find('.test-child').css('border', '1px solid red');
--enable-precise-memory-info
flag.
Test case name | Result |
---|---|
Inline Selector | |
Find |
Test name | Executions per second |
---|---|
Inline Selector | 394054.4 Ops/sec |
Find | 2379504.5 Ops/sec |
Let's break down the benchmark and explain what's being tested.
Overview
The benchmark is designed to compare the performance of two approaches for selecting elements in jQuery: inline selectors (e.g., #test-root .test-child
) versus the find
method (e.g., jQuery('#test-root').find('.test-child')
). The test measures how fast each approach can apply a CSS rule to an element.
Options Compared
#
and .
notation to directly select elements from the DOM.find
method, which searches for elements within a parent element that match a specified selector.Pros and Cons of Each Approach
#
and .
notation, which can be error-prone if not used correctly.Library and Its Purpose
The jQuery
library is used for both test cases. It provides a convenient way to manipulate elements in the DOM, as well as a set of selectors that can be used to target specific elements.
Special JS Feature or Syntax
The benchmark uses jQuery's chaining method (css('border', '1px solid red')
) to apply a CSS rule to an element. This is a common pattern in JavaScript development, where methods are chained together to perform complex operations on objects.
Other Considerations
Alternatives For measuring JavaScript performance, alternatives to MeasureThat.net include:
Keep in mind that each alternative has its strengths and weaknesses, and some might be better suited for specific use cases or programming languages.